HUMAN RIGHTS TALKS REVEAL AREAS OF AGREEMENT,

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 MEXICO 002886

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT PASS USOAS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/30/2017
TAGS: PHUM PREL UNHRC MX OAS HUMAN
SUBJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS TALKS REVEAL AREAS OF AGREEMENT,
DISCORD ON OAS AGENDA


Classified By: MCPA CHARLES V. BARCLAY, REASONS: 1.4(B/D).


1. (C) Summary: On May 29, U.S., Canadian and Mexican
officials held trilateral talks in Mexico City on human
rights cooperation. This is the first of two cables
summarizing the talks, and will focus on issues relating to
the upcoming OAS General Assembly (OASGA); issues relating to
the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) will be discussed septel.
The candid discussions revealed broad agreement between the
USG and GOC on many issues. While the talks reflected broad,
trilateral agreement on the draft OASGA resolutions relating
to protecting human rights while combating terrorism, and
protecting the rights of migrants and human rights defenders,
they also reflected significant disagreements with respect to
the draft OAS instruments on the rights of indigenous peoples
and on fighting racial discrimination. All three delegations
concurred that the candid discussions had proven very useful.
End summary.


2. (C) On May 29, representatives of the U.S., Canadian and
Mexican governments met in Mexico City for trilateral talks
on human rights. The talks began with Ambassador Gomez
Robledo detailing major initiatives the Calderon
administration was undertaking to improve Mexico's domestic
human rights performance. He said the GOM was committed to
bringing its domestic human rights practice into compliance
with its international obligations under existing human
rights instruments.

Setting Priorities for the OAS General Assembly
-------------- --


3. (SBU) After Gomez Robledo's brief introduction, the
delegations turned to a discussion of their respective
priorities at the upcoming OASGA. Director General for
Regional Organizations Raul Cueta said GOM priorities at the
OASGA included resolutions on protecting the rights of
internally displaced persons, migrants, human rights
defenders, and detainees, as well as on protecting human
rights and fundamental freedoms while fighting terrorism.


4. (C) Canadian Gwyneth Kutz said the GOC shared many of the
GOM's OASGA priorities. Kutz said GOC priorities also
included the resolutions on protecting the rights of
migrants, and expressed interest in joining the U.S. and
Mexico in co-sponsoring their joint-resolution. (Note: Since
the resolution is already closed, this will not be possible.
End Note.) Canada is also prioritizing efforts on human
rights defenders, protecting human rights while fighting
terrorism, promoting democracy in the hemisphere, and
promoting the participation of civil society in hemispheric
human rights efforts. The GOC will also push for the hiring
of more women in senior OAS positions.


5. (C) Kutz stressed the GOC is concerned about a number of
resolutions proposed by Venezuela, including one on the
so-called right to a healthy environment, a right which is
not established in international law; a resolution on citizen
participation in the development of democratic systems; and a
resolution on the obligation in the OAS Charter to preserve
and strengthen peace in the hemisphere, which she identified
as selectively reinterpreting the original text of the OAS
Charter. Canada is deeply concerned about recent internal
developments in Venezuela, where the regime,s actions had so
eroded freedoms and public institutions as to put Venezuelan
democracy at risk.


6. (C) DAS Barks-Ruggles agreed with Cueta and Kutz that
trilateral cooperation on the draft resolution on migrants
had been excellent. She said the resolution on civil society
participation in human rights efforts was among the USG's
priorities for the OASGA and urged GOM support for the
resolution. Barks-Ruggles joined Canada in expressing strong
concern over internal developments in Venezuela, particularly
recent measures aimed at muzzling the opposition press, and
efforts to block action by others in the OAS on human rights.
She emphasized that in the face of such troubling
developments, Mexico's co-sponsorship of the resolution on
free expression was vital.

Mexico Seeks Clarification of NGO Resolution
--------------


7. (C) The Mexicans said the GOM did not disagree with the

MEXICO 00002886 002 OF 004


principles underlying the U.S.-sponsored resolution on
Non-governmental Organizations and the Protection of Human
Rights and Promotion of Democracy, but that it and some other
governments felt the resolution needed to be clarified, as it
potentially duplicated the draft resolutions on both human
rights defenders and promoting democracy. Barks-Ruggles
explained that the resolution calls on SYG Insulza to prepare
a report on NGO best practices and to reiterate the
responsibility of states to promote and protect NGOs,
offering the opportunity to tell a positive story about
non-governmental organizations, contributions in this arena.
She added that all three North American governments had made
important contributions to the resolution on protecting the
defenders of human rights and it should be passed.

Venezuela's Resolution on Posada-Carilles
--------------


8. (C) Turning to the draft Venezuelan resolution on the
Posada-Carilles case, Barks-Ruggles emphasized that the OAS
was an inappropriate forum for addressing what was plainly a
bilateral U.S.-Venezuelan issue. Several governments had
already pledged to support USG efforts to defeat the
Venezuelan resolution and she urged Mexico to do the same.
The Mexicans replied that the GOM would study the
resolution's text.

OAS Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People
-------------- -


9. (C) The single biggest area of disagreement related to
the OAS Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as
well as the UN declaration on the same subject (septel). The
Mexicans argued that with an indigenous population of between
10 and 12 million, domestic political considerations required
strong GOM support for the OAS declaration. They added that
such domestic political pressure existed in many other Latin
American countries and was a major factor underlying broad
support for the as yet unfinished declaration. The GOM
believes that an OAS declaration should be consistent with
the UN declaration. The Mexicans asserted that the U.S.
proposal for general principles on indigenous rights would be
"a step backwards." Pressed by the US delegation as to why a
declaration would be seen as negative, the GOM delegation
emphasized form (e.g. the importance of an international
instrument versus a single declaration) over substance.


10. (C) DAS Barks-Ruggles emphasized the USG is committed to
concrete actions to address legitimate indigenous grievances.
She noted that the USG took its international obligations
seriously, that even non-binding declarations had significant
U.S. domestic legal implications, and that the USG would not
support a declaration that could not be implemented. She
explained that while early on, the USG had sought to
negotiate the declaration line-by-line, it had concluded that
this approach had not been effective. In the interest of not
blocking negotiations, the U.S. had taken the principled
position of taking a general reservation on the text, while
seeking to enhance the negotiations by contributing
observations based upon domestic U.S. experience on this
issue. She agreed the OAS declaration should be consistent
with the UN declaration, noting that the simultaneous
negotiation of the two declarations had led to
inconsistencies.


11. (C) The Canadians emphasized that in Canada the issue of
indigenous rights was politically charged. They observed
that even though declarations such as this one were not
themselves legally enforceable, Canadian courts were already
citing other international declarations as evidence of
evolving legal standards. The GOC was therefore very
concerned about the current text of the declaration, which
would have serious domestic legal ramifications if signed by
Canada. They argued the OAS declaration should focus on
points about which there is an international consensus, and
that including controversial issues on which no consensus
existed would compel Canada to opt out, weakening the
declaration's significance. They said that a declaration
promising more than could possibly be delivered would create
even more serious problems with indigenous groups than
currently existed, and that it was therefore vital to have a
declaration whose terms could be fulfilled.


12. (C) The Mexicans concluded the discussion of this issue

MEXICO 00002886 003 OF 004


by noting that indigenous peoples had become an important
actor in the international system, and that they had high
expectations for achieving gains by working within the
system. Accordingly, the GOM believed the international
community had to address these concerns. The Mexicans
repeatedly urged the three governments to search for
"creative solutions" to their disagreement, taking into
account political realities in Latin America.

Resolution on Migration
--------------


13. (C) The Mexicans said the GOM was extremely pleased
about the U.S.-Mexican co-sponsorship of the OAS resolution
on migrants, which they said reflected a "qualitative change"
in the nature of bilateral cooperation in regional fora.
They reiterated that the draft resolution on protecting the
human rights of migrants was among the GOM's highest
priorities and that the GOM also sought to establish a
special commission on migrant issues, to operate under the
OAS Permanent Council. The Mexicans believed the OAS was a
useful mechanism for addressing the issue of migration and
emphasized their support for the revised text of the draft
Belizean resolution on migration flows.


14. (C) DAS Barks-Ruggles said the USG was also very pleased
about the cooperation on the resolution on migration, adding
that the USG was committed to protecting the human rights of
migrants. She reiterated the administration's efforts to
secure passage of an immigration reform bill to address the
issue of migration comprehensively.


15. (C) The Canadians asserted the issue of migrants' rights
needed to be addressed in practical rather than rhetorical
terms, to reduce politicization of the issue, and to reduce
inconsistencies and redundancies. They observed that an
increasing number of international bodies were dealing with
the issue and that an effort should be made to decide which
bodies were best equipped to handle the issue.

Human Rights and Terrorism
--------------


16. (C) The Mexican delegation observed the three
governments had cooperated well on the resolution addressing
the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in
the war on terrorism, which was a high international
priority. DAS Barks-Ruggles agreed trilateral cooperation
had been strong. She urged the GOM to consider supporting
the biennialization of this resolution, noting the resolution
absorbed considerable attention at the OASGA and that
biennializing it would open room on the agenda for other
important issues. The Mexicans said they would consider the
idea cautioning, however, that biennializing the resolution
might depend upon "political factors."

Inter-American Convention on Discrimination
--------------


17. (C) The Mexicans outlined a number of measures the GOM
was taking to fight discrimination within Mexico, adding that
international human rights instruments had proven a major
factor in encouraging the GOM to strengthen its domestic
human rights performance. Accordingly, the GOM believed the
draft Inter-American convention on this issue would be a
useful tool, even if not all governments chose to ratify it.
In response, the Canadians said the text was weak, and at
times even inconsistent with existing international norms.
They noted, for example, that it would criminalize conduct
that could not be criminalized under Canadian law, and that
while the GOC strongly supported the fight against
discrimination, it would not be able to support the
convention as currently drafted. They added that developing
new norms risked confusing existing international norms, and
that instead of creating such new norms, it would be far more
effective to seek full implementation of existing norms.


18. (C) DAS Barks-Ruggles noted the USG had not been
involved in the negotiation of the convention and had made a
general reservation with respect to its text.


19. (C) The U.S. delegation, headed by DRL DAS Erica
Barks-Ruggles, included Doug Rohn of IO/RHS, Steve Hill of
L/HRR, Laura Jordan of DRL/MLGA, and Alan Meltzer and

MEXICO 00002886 004 OF 004


Priscilla Adams of Embassy Mexico City. The Mexican
delegation, headed by Ambassador Juan Manuel Gomez Robledo,
Secretariat of Foreign Relations (SRE) Under-Secretary for

SIPDIS
Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights. The following SRE
officials also participated: Alejandro Negrin, Ulises
Canchola, Alejandro Estivill, Raul Cueto Martinez, Salvador
de Lara, Matilde Garcia Verastegui, Juan Carlos Lara, Sylvia
Cabrera, Luis Benavides, and Mariana Salazar. The Canadian
delegation, headed by Gwyneth Kutz, Director of the Canadian
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's
(DFAIT) Division of Human Rights, Equality of Gender, Health,
and Population, also included DFAIT officers John Hannaford,
Benoit Gauthier, Sirine Hijal, as well as Matt Loken, of the
Canadian Embassy in Mexico City.


20. (U) DAS Barks-Ruggles has cleared on this cable.


Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American
Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap /
BASSETT